I’d say this was one of the strangest incidents I’ve seen in a long time, a disallowed goal by the Avs’ Chuck Kobasew that arguably cost the Columbus Blue Jackets the eighth and final playoff spot.
The situation: Kobasew scored an apparent good goal in the second period to give the Avs a 2-1 lead on the Wild. Referee Brad Watson – No. 23 – clearly signaled right away that it was a goal. He gave the tomahawk chop with his right arm for the signal of good goal.

Wild goalie Nik Backstrom immediately protested to Watson that Kobasew kicked it in, and the situation quickly went upstairs to the video review booth, and to the video war room in Toronto for a review of the play. That’s when things got really strange.

According to Avs coach Joe Sacco and to Avs TV color analyst Peter McNab – who did a superb job describing all this down on the ice between the benches – the Avs’ bench was told by referees that the call on the ice was “no goal.” But it was clearly, unless all of our eyes deceived us, called “good goal” by Watson.

Then, when the goal was overturned by Watson – looking a bit sheepish in doing so – Sacco said he was told that because it was ruled no goal originally, it was too inconclusive to overturn. Instead of a 2-1 Avs lead and maybe a panic job from there by the skidding Wild, Minnesota got the break, got to feel good and regroup, and won the game 3-1.

If the Avs had gone to overtime, let’s say, and won either in the OT or in a shootout, the Columbus Blue Jackets would be in the playoffs and the Wild would be out.

How did it get called “no goal” on the ice, when Watson clearly called it a good goal? The other referee in the game was Francois St. Laurent. Did he call it “no goal” and therefore his opinion carried the day? If so, he wasn’t the ref closest to the goal. Watson was.

Sacco was irate after the game, saying it was the “wrong call” and that it had a huge swing effect on the game. He said in all his years in the NHL, he’s never seen this kind of situation before.
“My interpretation is, after 25 years, is once the call is made on the ice it stands. Then you can review it in Toronto and they’ll make a decision. What I was told on the ice was, it was a non-goal on the ice. They then phoned Toronto, and Toronto came to their decision, that it was a non-goal as well. But the referee called it a goal,” Sacco said. “It was called a goal. In my 25 years, I didn’t know that you could go from the goal line back to the penalty box and change your decision once it’s called on the ice. I’ve never heard of that. That’s the wrong call. It changes the game.”

I emailed Mike Murphy, the NHL’s senior VP for hockey operations, who often works in the video room in Toronto, and this is what he said about the situation:
“The call from the ice that was given to us on the headsets was NO GOAL…..Watson pointed to signal that the puck was IN the net….he then consulted with the other Officials on the ice and the consensus among the Officials on the ice was that the puck was kicked into the net therefore the call on the ice was NO GOAL….we reviewed the play and determined that Kobasew’s right skate kicked the puck into the net thus agreeing with the call made on the ice.”

Here is a video account of the incident, which highlights the superb work done by Altitude and McNab in particular:

Maybe one of the strangest things you’ve seen in a long time should be Sacco still having his job! Nice try…..NOT!

4PuckSache

Or even more strange is sherman making a trade without his pants down grabbing his ankles.

burleigh

sherman doesn’t work autonomously. they’re all grabbing their ankles. hate to say it, but sakic is guilty by association. what’s he doing there? if he’s not part of the solution, he’s part of the problem. i hope he has a chance to step up, or steps out, before he’s lumped in with the rest of management.

Cougs_suck

If it hadn’t benefited the Avs more to lose I’d have been more furious at the officiating in this game. They called PAP for saying something from the bench, but they allowed the Wild to hold and grab the entire 3rd period, it was a joke. Not to mention when they called PAP it was when the Avs were already short a man in a 1 goal game, we’ve seen the refs let a lot worse go just based on the situation. I hope PA got his moneys worth. If I was a Columbus fan I wouldn’t be very happy.

But it did benefit the Avs more, as much as it sucks. I’d rather have a shot at a player like Jones or Drouin then keep the Wild from a first round exit.

EnzoSin

My sentiments EXACTLY.

Lauren

Maybe they’re trying to make up for Duchene’s offside goal. I can still see his face as he turned to find the ref and half raised his arm to celebrate.

4PuckSache

If you think the Avs hold a 2-1 lead and win the game, I find it hard to believe you’ve watched any of their games over the last 5 years. It would’ve been typical Avs, sit back, leave the goalie out to dry, get scored on 2-4 more times and lose.

Chantal

thumbs down.

http://www.facebook.com/Duarte33 Duarte Teixeira

apparently minnesota in the playoffs is better business for the nhl than columbus. Unbelievable that the goal was disallowed. Icing on the cake for the type of season the Avs had this year. Whether the avs end up losing regardless, that should have been a goal. On to next season, Im off to vegas baby! ;)

Jimbotronn

According to Wikipedia, Columbus is the 15h-largest city in the US, Cleveland is the 47th largest, Cincinnati is the 64th largest, and Toledo is 67th. Minneapolis is the 48th largest city and St Paul is the 66th largest. State-wide, Ohio has more than twice the population of Minnesota.

Now’ I’ll definitely agree that there is a higher percentage of hockey fans in Minnesota, but I think the notion that the league would prefer that the Wild — a team already getting strong support in a smaller area — makes it in at the expense of Columbus — a team with an opportunity to create excitement and fans in an area with a much larger audience — is a sketchy. Plus, I think there’s little argument that Columbus was the MUCH better “storyline” down the stretch. They played really, really good hockey down the stretch (they were 9-3 this month) and had they squeaked into the playoffs on the last day, the league would have milked that for all it’s worth.

Puck Me Up

I’m not sure that the size of these cities makes any difference at all as far as hockey is concerned. But I do think there may be something to the notion that the Wild entering the playoffs over the BJ’s makes a little more excitement for the NHL as far as this truncated season is concerned. After all, while both teams made huge splashes in making their respective teams better, the Wild went all in and spent the most money by signing Parise and Suter. Plus, they also brought in Pommenville at the deadline and that was supposed to generate a playoff caliber team right there. So yeah, I think more eyes were on the Wild than the BJ’s by far.

I’m not saying that last night’s “no goal” call was a conspiracy against the BJ’s per se, I’m simply suggesting that perhaps that bad call generated some folks to raise their eyebrows a bit and say, hmmm!

Jimbotronn

I’m just saying that the idea that the league would find a clear business benefit to having the Wild make the postseason doesn’t necessarily add up. They aren’t going to sell any more tickets in Minnesota next year because the Wild made it, but a playoff push ending with their team making it on the last day could have really done a lot to solidify the Columbus franchise, which the league undoubtedly would love to see based on the potential audience in Ohio.

The league conspiracy thing is, as it always is, ludicrous… but if there WERE a conspiracy, I’d have thought the league would have leaned towards the Jackets.

Clecinosu

Blue Jacket fan here. It would have been a nice cap of the regular season for Columbus had they gotten in. The fan base was getting a little restless. Last year’s trade with the Flyers for Jeff Carter was a bust, former captain Rick Nash was dealt to New York, and there was a great deal of pressure put on ownership to put the team in the hands of “hockey guys” rather than “pencil-pushers.”

But Columbus still got Jack Johnson from LA for Carter late last season, received plenty of good talent (Artem Anisimov and Brandon Dubinsky among them) for Nash, replaced the president and much-maligned GM with new president John Davidson and new GM Jarmo Kekalainen, and acquired Marian Gaborik from the Rangers for the playoff push. And the fans were in full throat in April, especially in the final game against Nashville at Nationwide.

But while there’s disappointment in Columbus (as usual), the outlook is better. Certainly playing in the East next season will be as tough as it was the 13 seasons the CBJ was in the West, and the team still won’t open the vault and try to outbid teams for talent, but things are getting better in “Cowtown.”

Jimbotronn

This is a rule I think Toronto doesn’t enforce correctly. Kobasew didn’t propel the puck in (which is the word used in the rule), he directed it in with his foot. Should have been a good goal, but at least Toronto is fairly consistent with this… if a player’s foot makes any motion towards the puck, they call that a “distinct kicking motion” and no goal. I’ve had a problem with this rule for a long time, because they don’t enforce it as it’s written.

As far as the ref supposedly calling for a goal on the ice, I have seen this happen before. It’s not nearly as bizarre as Dater makes it out to be. The ref points and stops play when he sees the puck in the net, but that doesn’t instantly mean the on-ice officials have called it a good goal. The other ref can always disallow the goal on the ice if he believes it was kicked, and that’s apparently what was done. Just because the one ref pointed at the puck in the net does not mean that the on-ice have deemed it a goal, no backsies.

Chantal

Usually, the referee is supposed to motion clearly as a “no goal” situation. In any event, I still think it was a bad call and could have changed the Blue Jackets’ destiny. It would have been nice to knock Minnesota out of the playoffs and have the owner look bad for his two big signings after saying that owners should stick together and not allow big contracts.

Jimbotronn

If that same ref saw the kick, then yes he would be the one to wave no-goal. But there were a lot of guys in front of the net there, and since the two-ref system came in place I have seen this happen a handful of times… one guy sees the puck go into the net and makes that motion, but the refs confer with each other on what they each saw before making the ultimate decision on the goal. Dater’s trying to take a run-of-the-mill disallowed goal call and make it this a controversial, bizarre play, and it really isn’t at all. It’s just a bad call on the ice and a bad decision in Toronto… which as we all know isn’t bizarre at all.

http://www.facebook.com/Duarte33 Duarte Teixeira

minny will sell out there playoff games this year, columbus would not. Fact that they already have support and columbus is almost a bandwagon market would most likely not. Ive had a couple but thats still my opinion.

Cbj2017

You are a moron. Cbus playoff tixs were sold out last week. I hope you die in a car fire. Your mentality is what permeates this league and leads to calls like that

http://www.facebook.com/Duarte33 Duarte Teixeira

die in a car fire? your funny.

http://bowlinginthedark.blogspot.com Some Guy

Disgusting.

Jimbotronn

Why hasn’t this been removed yet?

http://www.facebook.com/Duarte33 Duarte Teixeira

I dont take internet warriors comments towards me personally. What I do think is disgusting however is the fact that it has been voted up 4 times. Great people out there, smh.

Adam Y

Columbus wouldn’t have sold out its playoff games? That is as wrong as saying the earth is flat.

Chris DeMott

I have to agree with you on this. The Ref behind the goal line is signaling that the puck is in the net — that’s all, as he did not have the best angle to see Kobesew’s skate. The back side ref would have had a much better angle to see the play and it is common to confer when one official see’s something that another couldn’t. I also agree that the rule is written poorly as it is way too subjective. They need to either allow all pucks off skates or disallow them. Personally I would be fine with allowing kicking as it is not as effective a tactic as redirecting which is already legal. Finally, dragging the rear foot like he did is a common way to pull a puck up to ones stick and I would consider it a form of “propelling” the puck. No Goal.

Cougs_suck

I have to disagree with you slightly, we’ve seen refs not signal at all before if they weren’t sure. If he truly did not know if it was a good goal or not he shouldn’t have made any signal.

And for the record I had a hard time determining whether or not it was a good goal cuz I thought Kobasew moving his foot like that was weird, but he also wasn’t looking at the puck, hard to know his intentions. I agree they should just allow pucks off of skates.

Puck Me Up

Yep, that’s what the rule says, but that didn’t happen here. The puck never touched the foot that was out front and if it did that could very well be seen as a kicking motion and not a good goal. It bounced off the back foot and landed in the net which is a legal goal. I have no clue as to how they came to that conclusion because what they called “inconclusive”, in my mind was very clear that he didn’t kick at the puck in at any time and therefore, should have been a good goal.

Jimbotronn

On the replay, I did see Kobasew move his back foot in what could be described as an effort to play the puck with it. Whether it was intentional or not I’m not so sure, but I do think that by the league’s stupid definition of a “kicking motion,” there was one with his back foot. I do athink that it was a minor enough kicking motion that if it had been ruled a good goal on the ice, there may not have been enough evidence to overturn that either.

But yeah, the bigger picture is that at worst, he deflected the puck in but in no way did he “propel” it. If a puck is sitting on the ice, not moving, and you apply the force with your foot that gets it moving towards and into the goal, that’s a kick. But a puck flying through the air towards the net, already propelled by another player legally with his stick, I say is fair game to put a skate in front of it, even if you have to move your leg at the knee in a “kicking motion” to accomplish this.

Courtney

Did the refs change places with the football replacement refs? Chuckie Boy looked to be stopping and the puck hit his leg/skate in that motion and that’s not a kicking motion.

sete

That’s rich… “Watson pointed to signal that the puck was IN the net.”

Chantal

Without trying to be too fanatic, I really think this was a bad call by the referees. It should have been a good goal. There were many questionable calls throughout the game too.

Puck Me Up

I agree. Kobasew never kicked that goal at any time. I watched the replay several times and what I find to be most odd about the call is how they arrived to the fact that he kicked the puck with his back foot. The puck never touched his left foot, which was the foot in front of him. How can someone kick anything with their back foot when their legs are separated like that? The call was terrible and we’ve seen too many of those bad calls against the Avs this season.

Matt

Where was the “tomahawk chop” by the ref, Dater? Where?

All he did was point to the net to acknowledge that the puck went in, much like a goal judge’s job is to turn the light on when the puck crosses the goal line.

In neither case would those actions decide “good goal” or “no goal.”

That’s what the replay is for.

Just wow.

Cougs_suck

Just wow is right. It is his job to determine whether or not he thought it was a good goal, that’s why they go by the call on the ice if they can’t decide whether or not it was wrong based on the replay. And you’re really splitting hairs on the tomahawk chop thing, he pointed indicating a good goal which is all Dater said which you acknowledged.

EnzoSin

Maybe it should have been a goal, either way i was more concerned on the Av’s draft positioning over whether the Blow Jackets made the playoffs or not. Sometimes calls go your way, sometimes they don’t.

Oh yeah, I think the disallowed goal was pivotal in the Jackets missing the playoffs. Sure, it wasn’t the only factor, but it was a key one, I believe. I also believe disallowing the goal was a ripoff, as were those disallowed penaltiea. I was starting to wonder if the Wild were paying off the referees.

Jon E.

Avs had good pressure and almost scored a goal after the puck hit the top part of the netting almost going into the stands and for some reason that didn’t get blown dead either. An awful officiated game as usual.

alexclark

Great post about this. I’m surprised to see someone so educated in the matter. Tri Mountain I am sure my visitors will find that very useful.

Terry Frei graduated from Wheat Ridge High School in the Denver area and has degrees in history and journalism from the University of Colorado-Boulder. He worked for the Rocky Mountain News while attending CU and joined the Post staff after graduation. He has also worked at the Oregonian in Portland, Ore., and The Sporting News. His seventh book, March 1939: Before the Madness, was issued in February 2014.

Chambers covers college and professional hockey for The Denver Post. He has written for the Post since 1994, after dumping his first 9-to-5 office job a couple years out of college. He primarily follows the University of Denver hockey team and helps cover the Avalanche.